2009 Nissan 370z vs 1996 Toyota Supra
 

Hey guys, a couple buddies of mine were just hanging out and the topic of comparing RWD sports cars from Japan was brought up as they were admiring my 370z. In modern times, there really isn't a car worthy of competing with the Nissan 370z. The RX-8 is garbage. The Genesis Coupe 3.8 is from Korea. The Mustang/Challenger/Camaro are domestic muscle cars. Out from Japan, there is no competitor. But we could have missed something.

So we go back and bring back the good 'ol six cylinder twin turbos from back in the days. We have the 300zx TT, Mitsubishi 3000GT TT, Toyota Supra TT, and the RX7 TT. These four cars were the king of the hill back in the 90's. If you wanted a fast car, these were the ones.

So we try to compare them with the Nissan 370z. Specifically comparing two totally stock cars: the 1996 Toyota Supra vs the 2009 Nissan 370z. What is your opinion on which is faster around the track and which is quicker through the quarter mile.

1996 Toyota Supra
Engine liters 3.0
Turbo/supercharged Standard
Cylinder configuration I-6
# of valves 24
Recommended fuel premium unleaded
Limited slip differential Standard
Fuel economy city 19 mpg
Fuel economy highway 23 mpg
Fuel tank capacity 18 gal.
Engine displacement 183 cu.in.
Engine horsepower 320-hp @ 5,600RPM
Engine torque 315 lb.-ft. @ 4,000RPM
Curb Weight 3,485 lbs
MSRP $50,400

2009 Nissan 370z
Engine liters 3.7
Turbo/supercharged N/A
Cylinder configuration V-6
# of valves 24
Recommended fuel premium unleaded
Limited slip differential Standard
Fuel economy city 18 mpg
Fuel economy highway 26 mpg
Fuel tank capacity 19 gal.
Engine displacement 226 cu.in.
Engine horsepower 332-hp @ 7,000RPM
Engine torque 270 lb.-ft. @ 5,200RPM
Curb Weight 3,232 lbs
MSRP $29,930

I think the Nissan 370z wins in every category.

Except that part about performance/driving.

http://mkiv.com/publications/road&tr...3/rt393_06.jpg


here is another one. $37K as-tested.
http://mkiv.com/publications/motor_t...d-Mar-93-4.jpg

http://mkiv.com/publications/car&dri...3/6-cd3-93.jpg



4.6--------- 0-60,
13.1@109--- 1/4 mile
68.5mph---- 700' Slalom
.98g-------- 200' Skidpad
29.9sec---- 0-150
70-0-------149'

You find me documented (like above) tests that show the 370Z beating these figures. You can combine best single features from a test, etc. just like I did, but find a 370Z test showing better than the performance offered by the MKIV Turbo Supra. I dare you.


The MKIV Supra was a better performing car, even on mid 90's rubber. The only test I think you can find the 370Z doing better in is the 200' Skidpad and the 700' Slalom, but it won't be a landslide.

Here is what I found for a 2009 370Z:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...61a7a3bb51.pdf

0-60--- 5.1 (I have seen faster, I think 4.7)
70-0---151' (This is close to tops here from what I have read)
0-150---35.1 (ouch. No way you are going to find an example over 5 seconds faster, Supra owned it hard.)
1/4 mile---13.7@104 (I have seen better, but no 13.1@109's)
.98g----300' skidpad (I have seen .99 tested before)

Price makes the Supra very unappealing compared with the Nissan 370z. Nissan's competitor to the Supra was the 300zx TT. I thought that the 300zx was much faster than the Supra due to weight. It was also much cheaper too.

to be fair, some of the "progress" we've experienced over the years has made our vehicles slower. All the computer hardware, the safety features that have added weight... It's a lot. In fact, it's why we have the hp wars we currently have. Got to move the whales faster.

Also, I know that the Z isn't your cup of tea, but on a daily basis, how much more do you need than 0-60 in 5 seconds and 332bhp? I know that you crave more, but not everyone does.

In my daily commute, 0-60 in 10 seconds works well enough in my G20.

Why would you need 5-seconds?

These cars are about WANT, not need. That is my point. The OP was comparing the Supra to the 370Z, and stating that the 370Z "won in every category". To me, 0-60 is a category, one of performance.

I agree the cars have gotten heavier, but the MKIV was heavier than the 370Z is. Also, all that technology and the lighter weight and the 370Z still isn't out handling or out braking the Supra. They handle and stop so close to each other that it's a wash in my opinion. Same for their 0-60's. Where the Supra stomps on the Z is after they get rolling.

Both are nice cars, and I would rather own a new 370Z than a used MKIV, but I'm just saying I disagreed with the OP's assessment.

What, 37K too much? look at the links I posted. 37-42K MSRP "as tested". I see plenty of Z's that sell for that.

The 300ZX may have been faster than the NA Supra, but the 300ZX TT vs. the Supra T, the Supra won that one.

Although the Supra is fairly old, you would STILL see necks snapping as one passes by. They are very rare to see, especially in turbo form. The exhaust note is 2nd to none (though the Z sounds amazing as well), the styling is great (especially for a mid 90s car), although the Z may slightly win this one, and the performance was simply staggering when it came out.

However, I will say that the 'turbo' definitely adds to it's already stellar character. If the Supra was an NA car only, it wouldn't get half the attention it does. I feel the Z would get more attention as well if it was offered with a turbo, even in a 3.0L.

i guess stock for stock the 370z wins. However, the 370z is pretty much tuned to the max from factory, there isn't much more to squeeze out of the engine. The supra on the other hand, is pretty detuned. add 5k of whatever mods you want to each car, and the supra will run circles around the 370z.

and before people get all pissy about comparing modified cars, i'm not talking about 'mod the Z to equal the cost of some more expensive car thats stock. stock vs modded is a stupid comparison.

i guess my point here, really is, theres so much tuning potential in the supra, theres so much you can get out of the car. With the 370z, there really isn't unless you're dropping 15-20k on forced induction.

the supra does, however, have one of the ugliest interiors of any car. i'd still take one though.

stop watches weren't very accurate or reliable back then either. :D ;)

Those prices from the links you posted were in 1993 dollars. Converting 40,000 in 1993 dollars to 2009 dollars ends up being around 58,000.

lol nice one :tup:

back then 0-60 @ 6sec just felt like 4.3sec... so they just jot that down. :icon17:

:icon18:



I think those Supra's are one of the best affordable cars ever produced. Alongside the 93-95 RX7's, there's quite a bit of history and epicness I don't think we will see again, especially with the way safety requirements are going.

No doubt the Supra was/is a beast of a car, but it was killed off for a reason. Like the RX7, Z and even the 3000GT, the high prices eventually led to their downfall. It's for that single reason the 350z wasn't some twin turbo monster with a high price tag.

You gotta give the RX8 a little credit. Around the track, it can keep up with the best of them. True it lacks the grunt in the straights, but it's an extremely well balanced car. Swap in a 20b and you got yourself a winner. Check out the Speedsource RX8. Far from stock, but the chassis has always shown a lot of promise. The only disappointment was the lack of power and lack of aftermarket support for engine upgrades comparable to the rx7.

You forgot the S2000, discontinued I know. Can't keep up with the Supra stock, but still worth the mention. NSX should be in the mix also. Other cars worth mentioning from the present although not from Japan, Corvette, Exige/Elise, Porsche Cayman S, M3, Z4, 1 series M & Boss 302. Only four major Japanese car companies to choose from anyways.

I think you're doing it wrong...

But lets check this out:

Average Income in the United States (1913-2006) ? Visualizing Economics

Income in the mid 90's wasn't far or from income around 2006 (as good as my graph shows).

Now you brought up inflation.

So people are making LESS now (or in 2006...) than they were in 1996. Considering you make the same amount of even more worthless dollars now than then, as a whole.

Your inflation statement has cast just the opposite light on the situation than what you have intended.

As much as I love my Z i'd trade it for a stock supra if I could. The Supra is legendary, especially given the aftermarket available. BPU's easily make 450 whp. A single turbo swap on low boost and pump gas makes close to 600 whp with supporting mods. It's a one of a kind car. Now, if I had the $$ i'd probably still go for the GTR (similar 6 cyl twin turbo from factory) but the supra's are considerably cheaper. You can find them with built motors and single turbo set-ups on Ebay for $50k. Stock GTR is still 80-ish. However, once you start really bumping the power above 500 the Awd of the GTR will make up for the large initial price difference allowing you to put that power to the ground.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1994-...ht_2747wt_1168

This one is a bit much, but makes 550 whp on pump gas and is a gem. The guy is looking for $50k

There's others on there in mid 20's with BPU upgrades.

EDIT: OMG there's one on there with 31k miles!!! Only thing is you need to order a single turbo kit for it. The guy took the stock twins out and never finished his project. What a steal though for that car.

The Supra is an incon, and I like them, but the looks are only so/so to me. I think the 300ZX TT and the C5 corvette look better, from that time period, assuming 100% stock vehicles. Same for the NSX. Tires are too tiny looking for the wide body.

There are some Best Motoring vids of the Honda NSX-R that show it beating an e92 M3, Rs4, and other cars with more than 100 bhp on it in a standing 1/4 miles. It's also one of the best, if not the best, cars to have on a road course. It's also on my list of dream cars.

Note the note in the paragraph before the graph

"It now includes data through 2006 (in 2006$)."

The numbers in the chart in your link have already been converted to 2006 dollars.

There's no denying that the Supra (and the 300zx, Rx-7, etc.) were expensive for their time. A 1994 (C4) Corvette had an MSRP in 1994 of 36k. So the Supra had a higher retail price at the time than the Corvette ...

vettes have gotten more expensive, japanese sports cars have gotten less expensive.... what does that say about where each company is putting their engineering money :rolleyes:

^

Actually Corvettes have decreased in cost in terms of percentage of median income. The 2010 base Corvette has a MSRP of about 48K. That price is actually less expensive than 36K was in 1994.

But you are right in that the Zs and RXs, etc. are no longer competing in the same bracket as the Corvette. They certainly were direct competitors in the '90s

Dunno what year that was, but the NSX I stomped didn't have anything for my stock, 150K mile old dinosaur of an LS1 f-body from a 70 hit on a Mexican highway.

Extrapolated for inflation, a 1984 C4 vette costs $44K. The new 'vette costs $48K, and...

It is nearly 500% more rigid.
It has over 170% more power.
It still gets gets within 2mpg of it on the highway and identical mileage in the city.
It has a 5/100 powertrain warranty.



I would say the money is being spent well. Not bad for $4K.

Well then at best (or worst, depending on whose side of this argument you are on) they cost the same.

Hmmm ... I don't know where you came up with that conclusion

The Supra had a higher base price in 1993 dollars than the 370z base price in 2009 dollars. So even if you don't adjust for inflation, the Supra is more expensive. If you actually adjust those dollars for the decreased buying power of today's dollar, the Supra is much more expensive.

Here are links to various inflation calcuators

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Inflation Calculator
Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2011


The first calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that $37,000 had the same buying power in 1994 as $55k has in 2011.

So a 1994 MKIV Supra with a base price of $37,000 would cost around $55K in today's dollars.


Actually I think the 37K base price from your original link was "estimated price". Here's a window sticker for a '95 TT version -- A whopping 48.7K

http://www.mkiv.com/specifications/s...bo_sticker.jpg

The '93 version was considerably cheaper but still had a base price of around 40k

http://www.vipimports.com/Car-Toyota-24/013.jpg

:iagree: money well spent. my point was that gm is still putting a fair amount of money into engineering its sports cars, nissan seems to be the only japanese car that actually has sports cars, and then all the others have just abandoned them completely. oh wait, i forgot, toyota is spending a lot of money on engineering high performance cars.... the LFA, which no one can afford.

You can get a used GT-R in the $60k range and even in the $50k range if you find a good deal on the GT-R forums.

Gas was mad cheap back in the 90's though.

US spec Acura NSX's are completely different and drastically underperformers compares to a Honda NSX-R. And these were standing 1/4 mile comparisons. Above 100 mph the aforementioned cars would surely pull on it by quite a bit due to their tremendous power advantages.

I actually own a 1997 Supra TT 6spd BPU+++ and I love the 370Z/Nismo and have driven them and they are amazing car's.

But I would never own one they make nice DD or track toy's but takes lot's of $$$$ to go fast FI and Superchargers kits are big bucks.

Now on my Supra when the stock twins go out I will replace with a T6766 turbo and be doing low 10's easy and faster if I desire so for me it was the Supra or nothing.

I remember in the 90s where 500+HP 300zx turbos were brought up left and right. Can't really do that to our current engines unless you rebuild it.

The vids where they didn't choose a Lotus Elise in a Touge battle when it completely whips its contenders by 2 seconds? Same videos show fixed battles when comparing to "non-JDM" cars?

Been a while since this thread was updated, but the MKIV is starting to look dated, a bit, to me. Great engine/chassis, but it has seen its day. It's like the old mustang 5.0 back before its time: Awesome car to modify, but there are now better options on the table.

Importconvert your quarter mile time is way off, there is a thread on here with fastests 1/4 miles with I know 1 maybe 2 stock Z's that did 12.9x now I am not saying that is normal but it was done.

wow, did brand new Supras really cost up to $58k in modern day dollars? That's almost M3 money!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

I was behind a stock Supra Turbo the other day and they still look really good. It was cool that all the big Japanese companies had premium sports cars back in the 90's. My how things have changed.

Toyota Supra TT now LFA
Nissan 300zx TT now GTR
Mitsubishi 3000GT now nothing (Evo X isn't a premium sports car IMO)
Honda NSX now nothing
Mazda RX-7 now nothing

Wow, you really are an Evo hater.

I have a 94 Supra. I put 200K on it and it still runs strong. I still like the body style better than anything in its price range and it still has the best *** end out there.